Last week, I argued that conservative state legislators would be making a costly blunder were they to refuse to file state implementation plans (SIP) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as asked of them under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. Today, attorneys Brian Potts and David Zoppo of Foley & Lardner make the same argument. They reference a study by NERA Economic Consulting, moreover, to illustrate how counterproductive this strategy could turn out to be. According to NERA:

  • Were Kentucky (Sen. McConnell’s home state) to submit a SIP, electricity prices would likely increase by 12 percent.  If they left it to EPA to draft the regulations, however, electricity prices would likely increase by 21 percent.
  • Were Oklahoma (Sen. Inhofe’s home state) to submit a SIP, electricity prices would likely increase by 15 percent.  If they left it to EPA, however, electricity prices would likely increase by 19 percent.
  • Were Louisiana (Sen. Vitter’s home state) to submit a SIP, electricity prices would likely increase by 13 percent.  If they left it to EPA, however, electricity prices would likely increase by 18 percent.

Given that the NERA study was funded by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the Association of American Railroads, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, the Consumer Energy Alliance, and the National Mining Association, we can put aside any lingering concerns that NERA is doing the Left’s bidding by generating such numbers.

In sum, if conservative activists persuade states to engage in their proposed game of chicken with the EPA, there will be a steep price to be paid for failure.